This web-log, begun in 2011 for the purpose of clarifying the true nature of the work and views of Dr. William Pierce, and to counter misrepresentations thereof, is not affiliated with any organization.

Pages

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

THE JEWISH PROBLEM is as old as the Jewish race. Over three thousand years ago the Jews were formed as a racial and national community in Egypt. There the former slave Joseph had parlayed his talents for necromancy and grain-speculation into a virtual dictatorship at the side of the Pharaoh. “As for the people, he reduced them to serfdom from one end of the land to the other” (Genesis 47:21). Then Joseph threw open Egypt to his Jewish brethren: “You shall feed on the fat of the land” and “the best that the land of Egypt offers is yours” (Genesis 45:18, 20).

When a more national-minded Pharaoh turned the tables on the Jews they were forced to flee, but not before relieving the Egyptians of their gold and silver (Exodus 12:35–36). And so the pattern of Jewish history was set: from outcasts to fellow-citizens, then trusted advisers, and finally, ruthless masters. Then follow the persecutions, pogroms, and expulsions which have won for the Jews so much undeserved sympathy.

The great mass of American Whites seems indifferent to the Jewish question. This is not to say that Americans are unmindful of the Jews — far from it. The Jews are presently more prominent in American life than they have ever been before, and they feel less need to dissimulate and disguise the outward traits which have traditionally brought upon them suspicion and dislike. A name change or a nose job is no longer the prerequisite for social and political acceptance by Gentiles. On the contrary, to qualify as unprejudiced in today’s America, non-Jews must appear amenable to Jewish jokes, Yiddish slang, kosher hotdogs, and Israel bonds.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Henry Kissingercontemptuously described the red-headedRussian literary giant as "to the rightof the czars."

WHEN ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN, the Russian dissident writer who was exiled by the Soviet government in February, recently shouted at a group of Western newsmen, “You are worse than the KGB (Soviet secret police, equivalent to our FBI),” they were understandably hurt. After all, had not the newsmen of the democratic West made a great folk-hero of Solzhenitsyn, praising him to the skies at every opportunity? Had they not publicized his books for years, leading to their widespread sales outside the Soviet Union — and to a Nobel Prize for Literature for him in 1970?

Khrushchev Goofed Too

Alas, the neo-liberal media masters of the West were finding to their sorrow that they had misjudged their man as badly as the communist masters of the Kremlin had earlier.

Solzhenitsyn’s world renown as a writer began in 1962, when Nikita Khrushchev sponsored the Soviet publication of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, an autobiographical novel of Solzhenitsyn’s experiences as a prisoner in Stalin’s death camps. Khrushchev was promoting the de-Stalinization of the Soviet Union, and Solzhenitsyn’s criticism of Stalinism fitted the party line perfectly at that time.

A 1955 UNICEF Christmas card depicting the flags of thecountries in the United Nations organization.

ON WHAT considerations should a proper American foreign policy be based? That seems a sensible enough question, yet it is one which has been shunned by at least two generations of Federal “experts” and their media mouthpieces.

The basic reason is a reluctance to bring into the open certain fundamental discrepancies between America’s national interests and the guiding philosophy behind the foreign policy pursued by neo-liberal planners in Washington.

The shambles which this policy has made of the world in the last 60 years, however, should be adequate proof of the unsuitability of its ideological basis and of the need for a new one.

White World Community

The fundamental rule of a new and proper American foreign policy must be the rule which should also be fundamental to domestic policy: Race is everything. The destiny of America is inextricably linked by ties of blood

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

AN INTERESTING and important paperback hit the newsstands a couple of months ago. It is the New American Library (Signet) edition of Max Dimont’s 1971 book, The Indestructible Jews.

A quick skim of the book will convince the average reader that it is 482 pages of stark, raving madness. And it is 482 pages of stark, raving madness! But it is a revealing sort of madness that is well worth a careful, sober scrutiny by every American patriot (and by patriots of all lands) concerned about the menace of Zionism.

“Thou Shalt Suck the Milk of the Gentiles”

Max Dimont is no closet Zionist. In his book he lets it all hang out. He boldly announces to the world what all Zionists believe but most are too

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

DURING THE recent Apollo 17 lunar expedition, publicists and politicians repeatedly emphasized that it was the “last” manned expedition to the moon. There would be no more lunar exploration, because the expeditions were too expensive and the money was needed instead to “improve the quality of life” for Americans.

It was pointed out that huge expenditures for the space program could no longer be justified when millions of Americans were living in “poverty.” One columnist estimated that the money spent by NASA just for the equipment left on the moon by the various Apollo expeditions ($500 million) could have bought a large-screen color TV set for each of one million “underprivileged” (Black) families.

This anti-Jewish-immigration cartoon from Life magazine, October 5, 1911, gives a striking
reminder of how the media have changed after falling under Jewish control. The caption reads "These pills
make me grow, mother, but the more I take the worse I feel."

by Dr. William L. Pierce

FOR THE LAST three decades there has been, in this land of free speech and a free press, an almost universally observed taboo on one topic of overwhelming importance: the Jewish question. Until about the last year or two, in fact, it was hardly permissible to even hint at the existence of such an issue, much less to discuss it openly.

Now the subject has been broached, not by our own people — for whom it has the most crucial importance — but, interestingly enough, by the Jews themselves, who successfully imposed the taboo on it in the first place.

One cannot pick up a major newspaper today without reading about “the Jewish vote” in the recent Presidential election, or which candidate got the most “Jewish money,” or which senators are blocking further Russian trade agreements until the Russians make more concessions on “the Jewish issue,” and so on.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Since the fall of apartheid in 1994, South Africa has increasingly become a locus of
slaughter, rape, torture, poverty, and Black-on-White genocide
-- with near-zero coverage from the mass media.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE AMERICAN press in recent months has carried a number of reports of protests by South African students against their government’s policy of racial separation, or apartheid. “White Students Rebelling Against Government Discrimination,” the Reuters reports shriek, followed by vivid accounts of truncheon-wielding policemen wading into crowds of peacefully protesting students and brutally cracking skulls left and right. One news story told of policemen chasing students from the University of Cape Town who sought refuge in St. George’s Cathedral, battering them senseless, and dragging them out, leaving pools of blood among the pews.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

IT IS WORTHWHILE, every so often, to review in our minds just where it is that we are headed and how we plan to get there. It may help to keep us from wandering off course — from forgetting, in the day-to-day bustle of events, what it’s all about.

Then, too, circumstances change, and if our work is to remain meaningful and to continue carrying us forward we must constantly re-evaluate our strategy and our tactics in the light of new conditions. Otherwise, it is all too easy to slip into the lazy habit of saying and doing the same things we have learned to say and do in the past, while failing to continually keep in mind how these things relate to both our short-term and our long-term goals.

ATTACK! CERTAINLY does not want to establish a reputation as a pander for the skin-flick trade, but we are going out on a limb just once and recommending that all our readers see the movie Portnoy’s Complaint.

Actually there’s very little skin to be seen in this flick, although it is decidedly pornographic. The peg on which the film is hung is a young Jew’s problem with masturbation.

Fixation on Genitalia

If the viewer can stomach the peculiarly Jewish fixation on genitalia and human excretory functions which pervades the film, there is a reward for him: namely, a fleeting glimpse at the traditional Jewish attitude toward Gentiles — or the goyim, as Portnoy and his family would say.

An albatross chick found on the beach of Midway Atoll that never grew
to adulthood. Its parents accidentally fed it bits of plastic from the
Pacific Ocean, and essentially choked it to death.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

TECHNOLOGY has come somewhat into bad odor among many of today’s young people. Sensitive souls who find themselves out of tune with the gaudy, gimmicky, and artificial world of 20th-century America often place the blame for this dissonance on the technology which has made all the gimmicks possible. This attitude is revealed, for example, by the pejorative use of the term “plastic."

DDT and Big Brother

Hostility toward technology also often finds expression among those genuinely and deeply concerned about wildlife and the beauties and virtues of our vanishing wilderness. DDT and mercury pollution, oil spills, smog, the mind-shattering racket of jet aircraft and diesel trucks, the chemical adulteration of foodstuffs, the unsettling thought that Big Brother may be electronically eavesdropping on our most intimate and personal affairs, the Niagara of household detergent wastes which are killing our lakes and streams — all these things are blamed on modern technology to which they are, undeniably, related.

A map of Europe depicting the spread of megalithic structures
across the continent.

GENERATIONS of American and European schoolchildren have been taught about the “cradle of civilization” in the Middle East, from which cultural innovations supposedly spread out to other lands, eventually illuminating even the darkest corners of barbarian Europe.

The Egyptian pyramids are cited as examples of the first spark of creative engineering applied to the erection of massive stone architecture — a spark which cast a dim light northward and westward, leading to later engineering achievements in Europe.

Likewise, the ceramics and metallurgical skills of ancient Mesopotamia are held up as the models which were supposedly later copied by the benighted peoples of Europe.

Now, recent scientific work has invalidated the entire scheme of European prehistory based on the notion of ex oriente lux — light from the east. The exciting new findings, which have revolutionized the fields of archaeology and prehistory within the last year, are discussed in an article in the October 1971 issue of Scientific American.

Friday, October 31, 2014

Ali’s Wisdom

by Dr. William L. Pierce

IN THIS era of falsehood and corruption, it is refreshing to hear a little simple wisdom on racial matters from a well-known public figure. It is embarrassing, however, that that wisdom should have to come from a Black rather than someone of our own race (ILLUSTRATION: Muhammad Ali).

In a recent interview published by Playboy magazine, Muhammad Ali, the Black heavyweight-champion boxer, who is a devotee of the Black Muslim religion, made the following comments:

“…If I could be President of the U.S. tomorrow… or be in an all-black country of 25,000,000 Negroes and my job would be to put garbage in the truck, I’d be a garbage man. And if that included not just me but also my children and all my seed from now till forever, I’d still rather have the lowest job in a black society than the highest in a white society. If we get our own country, I’d empty trash ahead of being President of the U.S…..

“Before I was a Muslim, I had one white girlfriend for two days, that’s all. I wasn’t no Muslim then, but I just felt it wasn’t right… Black men with white women just don’t feel right. They may think it’s all right and that they’re in love, but you see ‘em walking on the street and they’re ashamed — they be duckin’ and they be cold. They’re not proud. Once you get a knowledge of yourself you see how stupid that is….

“Man, I was in Chicago a couple of months ago and saw a white fella take a black woman into a motel room. He stayed with her two or three hours and then walked out — and a bunch of brothers saw it and didn’t even say nothin’. They should have thrown rocks at his car or kicked down the door while he was in there screwing her — do something to let him know you don’t like it. How can you be a man when another man can come get your woman or your daughter or your sister — and take her to a room and screw her — and, nigger, you don’t even protest?…

“A black man should be killed if he’s messing with a white woman…. Raping, patting, abusing, showing our women disrespect — a (White) man should die for that…. We will kill you, and the brothers who don’t kill you will get their behinds whipped and probably get killed themselves if they let it happen and don’t do nothin’ about it.”

In response to a question from his interviewer as to what should be done about a Black Muslim woman who goes out with a White man, Ali answered: “Then she dies. Kill her too.”

And, although Ali didn’t say it, the same should apply to the White woman who betrays her race. Kill her too!

* * *

From Attack! No. 45, 1976

transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

Liberals, the Jews, and Israel

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE CURRENT JEWISH power play in the Middle East poses the gravest imaginable dangers to America. Yet, in the midst of these dangers is a development which offers the promise of great good to the American people. That good is the disruption of the American liberal establishment and the extensive undermining of the traditional alliance between Jews and Gentile liberals.

Neo-Liberal Stalwarts

The Palestine crisis has caused a major falling out among the architects of American decline and degeneration. We are presented with the interesting spectacle of such neo-liberal stalwarts as Reverend Daniel Berrigan, Senator J.W. Fulbright, and syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, among others, turning against both their fellow liberals and their Jewish patrons in the news media and siding with the Palestinians in the Jew-Arab conflict in the Middle East.

One of the many ironies of this is that the very liberals who are now in such a state of ideological disarray and moral torment over the issue of Jewish imperialism and aggression in the Middle East laid the groundwork themselves for that imperialism and aggression more than a quarter-century ago by supporting the initial Zionistseizures of Arab territory.

Jewish Soap

Daniel Berrigan

At that time — in the years immediately following World War II — Jews could do no wrong in liberal eyes. They were then, even more successfully than now, exploiting their role as “victims” of National Socialist persecution. They parlayed pitiful tales of gas chambers and soap factories into a carte blanche for their postwar political designs, relying heavily on support from beguiled liberal Gentiles.

It is interesting to note that liberals, who have always insisted that a person must be judged only as an individual and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group, accepted without hesitation the thesis that the Jews, as a people, were entitled to immunity from criticism and to collective reparations for the disabilities which some individuals among them, no longer present for the most part, had suffered earlier in Germany.

Butchers in U.S. Uniforms

J.W. Fulbright

Furthermore, the same liberals who so passionately commiserated with the Jews after the war were startlingly oblivious to atrocities committed against peoples far less blameworthy than the Jews in Germany: the postwar massacre of the Cossacks by the Soviet secret police, for example, or the slaughter of half a million anticommunist Croats by Tito’s communist guerrillas in 1945. Liberal writers who condemned in the harshest terms the German practice of shooting Jewish political commissars whenever they were discovered among captured Soviet troops, refer in an indifferent and offhand way to the brutal torture and murder of tens of thousands of German SS men, the elite of their nation, who, after they had laid down their arms and surrendered, were turned over to Jews in U.S. Army uniforms to be castrated, used for bayonet practice, and subjected to other tortures too gruesome to recount.

Left-Wing Tradition

One cannot blame this historic inability of liberals to recognize persecution, except when a Jew happens to be the persecutee, on the liberal bias toward left-wing causes and governments with which Jews have traditionally been associated. The Soviet government, for example, was immune from criticism so long as it occupied itself with the butchering of Ukrainians, Cossacks, Latvians, Poles, etc. But when the Kremlin decided the time had come to put a foot down on Zionist agitators on its own doorstep, liberal publicists suddenly turned against the Soviet Union with a vengeance.

Professional Victims

Rowland Evans

No, there is a very special relationship between Gentile liberals and Jews, and it began long before World War II.

Jews, of course, have been playing the “persecution” angle for all it is worth throughout their long and turbulent history. In a sense they have made a living — generally, a very good living — off being “scapegoats.”

Before the Germans it was the Russian Czars who persecuted this race of professional “victims,” and before them it was the Polish peasants, and the Spanish Inquisitors, and the English yeomen, and the French Crusaders, and the Roman legions, all the way back to the Egyptian Pharaohs. Westerners, and not just the liberals among them, have always been suckers for a cleverly managed act of martyrdom.

Symbiosis

But there is more to it — much more. From the time when the Jews were emancipated from their European ghettos and began infiltrating the institutions and the cultural and political life of the Western peoples among whom they lived, there developed a symbiotic relationship between Jews and Gentile liberals.

Jews are, in a sense, the carriers of the neo-liberal virus — that is, of the disease in its modern form, which differs substantially from what was called ”’liberalism” prior to the 19th century.

Robert Novak

Having lived throughout 4,000 years of recorded history as an alien minority among other peoples, Jews have developed a unique modus vivendi which depends critically upon preventing their hosts from forming a united front against them and restricting their activities. They must, much in the way certain bloodsucking insects inject a venom into their host in order to break down its body tissues and permit the easier withdrawal of nourishment, break down all barriers of race and culture which protect a host people from them.

Potent Venom

Otherwise the natural protective reactions to their presence in the body of the host will result in their being either expelled or encysted, as has happened repeatedly throughout history.

Neo-liberalism is the most potent tissue-dissolving venom which the Jews have developed for breaking down the institutions and the internal structure of the Western nations. Gentiles infected by the disease have opened the door of one Western institution after another to the Jews during the past 200 years and have then provided “cover” for their activities.

Automatic Suckers

The Jews are an extraordinarily clever, ambitious, and aggressive people, and they have used their cleverness to evoke an almost worshipful attitude toward them on the part of Gentile liberals, who have been hypnotized by the Jews’ apparent “brilliance,” “creativity,” and “sensitivity.” In this hyper-receptive state, the liberals have been automatic suckers for every new fad the Jews have trotted out, from the most perverse and destructive trends in modern painting and sculpture to the pornographic “literary” blather of Philip Roth and Norman Mailer.

From the Jews they have learned to venerate the ugly, the weak, the deformed, the impure, the unnatural, the chaotic. The Jews have inverted their sense of values and taught them to coddle and promote Blacks, mongrels, criminals, moral cripples and perverts of every sort, and, above all, those rejected and “persecuted” by society.

Ill-Gotten Lucre

None have ever more successfully used the gimmick of portraying themselves as a persecuted minority, the unfortunate and blameless victims of religious and racial discrimination, than the Jews.

This was easy for them at a time when, as pushcart peddlers and pawnbrokers, they could speak only broken English and were ostracized from polite society. But only the special relationship which has grown up between liberals and Jews can account for their being able to maintain this pretense after they had gotten rid of their Yiddish accents (Henry Kissinger excepted) and were rolling in ill-gotten lucre from Hollywood to Broadway.

Monopolists

Liberals still thought of them as downtrodden people, especially deserving of sympathy and protection, after they had monopolized half the schools of law, medicine, and journalism in America, had elbowed the last of their Gentile competitors out of the clothing industry and a dozen other major industries, and had established themselves as the single most powerful bloc on Wall Street, with Jewish financial houses (Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; Goldman, Sachs; J.W Seligman & Co.; Lehman Bros.; Dillon, Read; Speyer & Co.; Ladenburg-Thalman; Salomon Bros.) overshadowing the older Gentile firms.

In recent years, lest all this opulence and power confuse their liberal admirers, the Jews have used their control of the mass media to crank out a steady stream of motion pictures, books, and Sunday-supplement articles rehashing over and over again their mistreatment at the hands of the Germans a generation ago, thus maintaining their status as a persecuted minority.

Easy Choice

But, irony of ironies, it was this very bias in favor of the underdog which finally caused the liberals to miss an ideological turn the Jews had mapped out for them and to go off on the “wrong” road in the Middle East.

After all, here were a bunch of arrogant, militaristic, racist, imperialistic Jews on one side (the Israelis), rolling in billions of dollars of “reparations” extorted from Germany and grants from the United States, and armed to the teeth with an enormous arsenal of fancy, new, technological weapons, waging aggressive war against huddled, penniless, tattered Arab refugees living in tents and armed only with rifles and hand grenades (the Palestinians). It was pretty obvious which side a person conditioned always to favor the underdog should choose.

Over-conditioned Liberals

The situation is reminiscent of that accompanying the Italian invasion of Ethiopia nearly 40 years ago, when the liberal sympathy for the Ethiopians, brown and backward, was Pavlovian. Since then they have been conditioned repeatedly by the news media, most notably in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, to side with the guerrillas, the irregulars, the “freedom fighters,” against the establishment troops. In the Middle East all this conditioning has backfired on the Jews.

They have tried to use their control over the mass media to paint a propaganda picture of Israel as an underdog nation and to identify the wretched, dispossessed Palestinians with their oil-rich Arab neighbors. But this portrayal has been too grotesque for credibility. The Israeli concentration camps, the racism practiced against the Arab minority in the Jewish-occupied areas, the Israeli policies of imprisonment without trial, of collective reprisals against Arab civilians, of arrogantly trampling on the sovereignty of Lebanon, of torture of prisoners — all these have triggered conditioned reflexes in American liberals.

Ideological Consistency

And the result is, wonder of wonders, that the liberals—or, at least, a significant fraction of them—are accidentally ending up on the right side of an issue for once. They are, in growing numbers, taking the side of Arafat and his Palestinian freedom fighters instead of the side of their Jewish oppressors.

The pro-Palestinian position is by no means unanimous among liberals, of course. It is taken only by the honest ones, by the ideologically consistent ones.

The Jews still have a plentiful stable of obedient liberal hacks on their payroll — 95 per cent of the Congress, for example, and thousands of newspaper prostitutes, pulpit prostitutes, academic prostitutes, and showbiz prostitutes — all dancing to the Zionist tune in order to earn their supper. For every Senator Fulbright there are half-a-dozen Hubert Humphreys and “Scoop” Jacksons, and for every Evans and Novak there are three or four Joseph Alsops.

No Collaboration

Furthermore, it would be a severe miscalculation to plan on any sort of coalition or collaboration between honest liberals and patriots in order to break the Jewish stranglehold on America.

Liberals — with a very few individual exceptions — have had no real change of heart. They are quite insistent that their anti-Zionist position in no way implies any basic change in their attitude toward Jews. They simply regard Zionists as Jews who have gone bad and Zionism as a racist aberration, rather than as the essence of Jewishness itself.

Table-leg Therapy

Senator Fulbright and the Reverend Berrigan are still on the wrong side of every issue except Palestine, and they are on the right side of that issue for the wrong reasons.

In other words, liberals — including the consistent ones — are just as sick as ever and just as dangerous to the future of America as ever. The only way the great majority of them will get their thinking straight, eventually, is with a sturdy, oak table leg applied smartly and repeatedly alongside the head.

Nevertheless, the present dissension in liberal ranks is of inestimable value. It is the most fervent and influential of the liberals who are now taking an anti-Zionist position, and their numbers and influence are growing daily.

Palestinian Victory Inevitable

The Palestinian people, through their perseverance, their sacrifices, their reckless courage, and their determination to use any and all means to keep the world from forgetting about them, have finally succeeded in obtaining, in the United Nations, a forum for presenting their case to the world. More and more liberals will be forced to listen to them, and more and more liberals cannot help but agree with them.

And Israel’s intransigence and arrogance, exacerbated by recent Palestinian propaganda successes, will become more painfully obvious to her former admirers. Who could have failed to be repelled by that shrieking, cursing mob of swarthy, wiry-haired Israelites outside the United Nations building in New York in November, spitting and screaming for Yasser Arafat’s blood as he eloquently pleaded his case for justice for his people inside?

Cracks Will Widen

All this can only lead to a widening of the cracks which have already appeared in the System: the liberal-Jewish power structure which rules America. These cracks offer patriots an opportunity they have not had in the last 35 years to build opposition to the System and to win support for an alternative.

The Jews, of course, are fully aware of this. They can feel the tide of liberal opinion finally turning against them or, at least, against their territorial ambitions in the Middle East — and they are far-sighted enough to see the long-range dangers this tide can bring them.

“The New Anti-Semitism“

They have frantically tried to head it off by denouncing as “anti-Semitism” every manifestation of anti-Zionism. Their principal “enforcement” agency in America, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, has sponsored the publication of a widely touted book, The New Anti-Semitism, which singles out by name many prominent liberals who have taken a public stand even slightly critical of Israel and attempts to stigmatize them with an “anti-Semitic” label.

In days past, the threat of being called an anti-Semite was enough to send the bravest liberal scurrying for cover, but this tactic isn’t working any more. In fact, it’s backfiring on the Jews.

Nature of the Beast

The Palestine issue is too clear-cut, and the liberals who have finally made a moral decision on this issue are standing their ground. Being called “anti-Semites,” instead of frightening them, is calling to their attention, for the first time, the true nature of the beast with which they are dealing. It is merely hardening their position, burning the bridges between them and their former unquestioning philo-Semitism, and — in a very few cases — causing them to re-examine the whole basis of their ideology.

Rising Panic

These developments are causing a rising feeling of panic in the Jewish community. Always ready to cry before they are hurt, some Jews have even claimed, with a tinge of hysteria, “It’s happening again!” (a reference to their growing unpopularity in Germany in the 1930s).

More than anything else, the changing tide of liberal opinion may cause the Jews to overreach themselves by attempting a “final solution” of their Arab problem in the Middle East before they lose too much more ground in America.

If that happens, America will undoubtedly become involved in another war and will probably suffer grievous consequences. But, as General Brown suggested, it also might be exactly what is needed to change the present liberal ground swell against Zionism to a popular tidal wave against all Jewish influences in America.

* * *

From Attack! No. 32, 1975

transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

Thursday, September 4, 2014

From January 1996 Issue of Free Speech:

The Silencing of Hans Schmidt

Hans Schmidt Was Thrown into Jail Simply forDispleasing the Wrong
People

By Dr. William Pierce

Perhaps you've noticed recently how pleased the news media have been
to inform us that Mr. Clinton's popularity with the electorate is rising.
His so-called "approval rating" is higher than it's ever been,
largely because he is perceived as taking a decisive and principled stand
to bring peace to Bosnia.

It's not that the American people are happy about the possibility of
becoming involved in yet another war, but they are pleased to see their
draft-dodging, pot- smoking President, who was in the streets with the
Reds and the hippies chanting "Ho, ho, ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong's
gonna win" back during the Vietnam war, finally trying to act like
a statesman by using American diplomacy and military power to end the butchery
in Bosnia: finally trying to walk tall and carry a big stick. Probably
that makes many Americans feel a little safer, feel that their President
will stick up for them when they need him.

Well, let me tell you something else about Mr. Clinton's supposed principles:
about the way he walks tall and sticks up for Americans when they need
the support of their government. Five months ago, in August 1995, an American
was seized by the German secret police at the airport in Frankfurt as he
was preparing to return to the United States after visiting his 93-year-old
mother in Germany. He was thrown into a German prison, where he remained
until very recently, without trial and without bond. His name is Hans Schmidt.
He lives in Pensacola, Florida. He has been a U.S. citizen for 40 years.
He committed no crime while he was in Germany. He has never done
anything, either in Germany or the United States, which is a crime
under U.S. law.

Jailed in Democratic Germany: The Ordeal of an American Writer

by Hans Schmidt, published by Guderian Books (December 1997)

What he had done, however, was publish a newsletter in 1994 in the United
States which displeased the Jews. You see, Mr. Schmidt heads the German-
American National Political Action Committee, an organization dedicated
to the interests of Americans of German descent, like Mr. Schmidt himself
- and like 55 million other Americans. One topic which Mr. Schmidt often
discusses in his newsletters is the Jews' hate-propaganda campaign against
Germany, especially their claim that the Germans gassed 6,000,000 of them
to death during the Second World War, and therefore the Germans of today
owe the Jews of today a free living. In particular, Mr. Schmidt criticized
the anti-German hate film Schindler's List, pointing out a number of Jewish
propaganda lies in the film.

Now, in the United States it's still not illegal to criticize a film
- even a Jewish propaganda film. But in Germany it's a different story.
In Germany to contradict the Jewish party line about the so-called "Holocaust"
is illegal. It's what the Jews and their news media call a "hate crime."
Many Germans are in prison today simply because they have written or said
something the Jews didn't like.

That's because the German government today is a continuation of the
occupation government imposed on the German people 50 years ago by the
communist and democratic Allies who conquered Germany in the Second World
War. It is a government in which German patriots were forbidden to participate.
It consists of traitors who were willing to serve the conquerors of their
people - of ambitious traitors who understood that the way to power and
privilege in conquered Germany lay in pleasing the Jews. And these traitors
were happy to impose on their own people whatever laws the Jews demanded.
They taxed the German people so that the German government could send tens
of billions of dollars to Israel in so-called "war reparations"
- even though Israel didn't even exist during the war. And they enacted
laws making it illegal for Germans to criticize or contradict Jews.

Now, of course, German laws are the business of the Germans. Until the
German people rise up, hang their traitors, and form a patriotic government,
they'll have to do without freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
They'll have to obey the laws imposed on them by a government of traitors
or pay the penalty for breaking those laws. But those laws cannot
be imposed on Americans for what Americans do on American soil. The German
government cannot. take away an American's right to say or write
what he wants in America.

Hans Schmidt has been a naturalized American citizen for 40 years. He
has committed no crime in Germany. The German government has no jurisdiction
over what he has written in America. And yet he has been arrested by the
German secret police and imprisoned. How can that be? Why did that happen?

I'll tell you. Hans Schmidt was arrested for two reasons. First, there
are Jewish hate organizations in every country, including the United States
and Germany, which not only make Jewish hate propaganda for the Jew-controlled
media, but which also spy on the people of the country in which they are
located. They compile hate lists of people who say or write things which
displease them. They distribute these hate lists to their news media, and
then the people on the lists are accused of "hate crimes" by
the media. And they distribute these hate lists to the governments over
which they have influence, and they demand that the governments take repressive
action against the people on the lists. Hans Schmidt's name is high on
most of these Jewish hate lists. That's one of the reasons he was arrested
by the German secret police.

A second reason is that the German secret police knew ahead of time
that the United States government would not protest Hans Schmidt's arrest.
More important, they knew that the Jew-controlled news media would remain
silent-that there would be no headlines in the New York Times or
the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal or any other
Jewish newspaper.

They knew that the U.S. government would not protest, because the head
of the secret police in the United States, Mr. Clinton's FBI Director Louis
Freeh, has pledged to them repeatedly during the past two years that he
would do everything he could to help them silence Americans who are saying
things the Jews don't like. He has publicly lamented the fact that the
United States does not have repressive laws like those in Germany, which
prohibit Politically Incorrect speech. He has publicly lamented the fact
that the FBI cannot arrest people like Hans Schmidt - and me and many other
Americans on the Jews' hate lists - but he has pledged that he would help
the German secret police arrest them.

And that's exactly what he has done. Mr. Freeh is a politically ambitious
little man, and he knows which side his bread is buttered on. He knows
whom he must please in order to remain in favor in the Clinton government.
And so when Americans on a Jewish hate list travel to another country,
Mr. Freeh's secret police in Washington tip off the secret police in the
other country. They collaborate in punishing American citizens for exercising
their Constitutional rights.

And of course, it's not just Mr. Freeh who is engaged in this subversive,
anti- American activity. The whole Clinton government is composed of people
who want to abolish the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, so that
they can usher in the New World Order, where no one will be permitted to
say or write anything which is not Politically Correct. They want a New
World Order governed by "hate laws," where anyone who doesn't
toe the line can be thrown into prison for a "hate crime." They
take their lead from Jews who already have succeeded in imposing such laws
on the people of Germany, of Canada, of Britain, and of many other European
countries. The Clinton government could not silence Hans Schmidt while
he was in America, but they did collaborate with the German government
in silencing him, and they continue to collaborate with the German government
by failing to protest its imprisonment of an American citizen.

Contrast this despicable, treasonous behavior of the Clinton government
in Hans Schmidt's case with its behavior in the case of the Chinese dissident,
Harry Wu. We've all heard about Harry Wu, because the controlled news media
in America made a celebrity of him when he was arrested by the Chinese
government a few months ago. The Clintonistas became his champions and
protectors. Mrs. Clinton wouldn't attend an international feminist conference
in China, because the Chinese had Harry Wu in jail. And Harry Wu had quite
clearly broken Chinese law in China by illegally sneaking into the country
with a forged passport. We may sympathize with Mr. Wu's anti-Communism,
but we cannot honestly pretend to be outraged when the Chinese government
arrests him for entering China with a forged passport. That's illegal
everywhere.
Hans Schmidt, on the other hand, did nothing illegal in either Germany
or the United States. He was arrested solely because the Jews demanded
it, and because their lackeys in the German government knew that their
lackeys in the U.S. government wouldn't protest. That is something
to be outraged about.

Hans Schmidt with Dr. Pierce, among friends

Now, I've known Hans Schmidt for 15 years. He's a personal friend. At
a time when I was even poorer than I am today, he gave me an automobile.
It's an automobile which my wife still drives. I've spoken often with him
over the years and shared important information with him. So I have a personal
reason for being outraged at what has been done to Hans Schmidt. But you
should be just as outraged as I am. The attack on Hans Schmidt's rights
and freedom is an attack on the rights and freedom of every American. If
Hans Schmidt can be silenced, so can I - or you - or anyone. If we don't
express our outrage now about what has been done to Hans Schmidt, who will
speak up for us when we are silenced?

There's not much point in directing our outrage against the German government.
That's something for German patriots to concern themselves with. And I'm
sure that one day they will rise up and settle matters over there, if they
have enough rope and lampposts for the job. But we have a job to do over
here. We Americans should direct our outrage against the subversives and
criminals in our own government who have conspired with the German government
to silence Hans Schmidt. We should direct our outrage against the Clintonistas
and all of the other collaborators. We should direct our outrage at the
hate organizations which compile the hate lists and whisper in the ears
of the politicians and provide hate propaganda for the controlled media:
organizations like the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Simon
Wiesenthal Center, and the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center. It is
these Jewish hate organizations which ultimately are responsible for the
imprisonment of Hans Schmidt. It is these hate organizations which are
pushing for "hate laws" in the United States, making it illegal
to criticize them or their policies. It is these hate organizations which
are pushing harder than anyone else to abolish our Constitution and subject
us all to the New World Order.

Just being outraged at these hate organizations and at their collaborators
in the media and the government isn't enough, of course. If we want to
keep our freedom to say and write what we think, just being angry at those
who are taking it away from us isn't enough. We have to fight these enemies
of freedom with all the means at our disposal.

Look! We cannot do now to this filth, to these haters of our people,
what really needs to be done. That will have to wait. But here's what we
can do now, what we must do now: first, we must remember that most of the
politicians and bureaucrats who collaborate with the haters are men without
principle or conviction or scruple. They are simply ambitious opportunists.
Most of them are lawyers. They don't care about freedom one way or the
other, since they can't eat it or put in the bank. It's just a word to
them. They don't care whether Hans Schmidt is in prison or not. All they
care about is how much butter is on their bread. We must make these corrupt
men understand that a day of reckoning is coming, and that they will be
called to account. We must make them understand that on that day we will
present them with a bill for all of the butter they have accepted from
the haters. We must make them understand that the time for them to begin
buying insurance against that day is now.

Remembering these things, let's begin by reminding them that to us freedom
is not just a word, that to us it is important whether or not our government
sticks up for its citizens' rights - and that until the day comes when
we use other means, we will at least make our voices heard in support of
freedom, that we will not be silenced, and that if they try to ignore us
our voices will only grow louder and stronger.

Let's begin by writing letters and making telephone calls. Write to
the State Department in Washington, which is supposed to be responsible
for the welfare of American citizens traveling in other countries. Tell
them that you are very unhappy that they did nothing to obtain Hans Schmidt's
release. Tell them that you are angry. Tell them that you want to know
why they haven't even protested to the German government.

Write to the politicians in the Congress who are supposed to be representing
your interests. Tell them the same thing. Demand answers.

************************

The most important thing for us to keep in mind

is that we are not powerless, despite what the

haters would like for everyone to believe.

************************

Listen! You may think that writing letters is wasted effort, that others
already have written and that it has done no good, so why should you bother.
The politicians and bureaucrats don't care, you may think, so why should
you make yourself look foolish by making demands that they'll just ignore.
If that's the way you think, you're wrong. I tell you that if everyone
listening with us today will write, if those politicians and bureaucrats
receive a hundred thousand angry letters, they will remember that a little
insurance might be a good thing for them.

And write to the editors of every newspaper and news magazine you read.
Tell them what you think about the failure of the Clinton government to
protect the rights of its citizens. Some of those letters will be published
and will be read by tens of thousands of other people.

Use your telephone. Call every talk show which can be received in your
area. Get on the air. Express yourself forcefully. People will listen to
you.

The haters at the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law
Center will continue to sneer at us and to snicker among themselves, and
they will continue to spread their hatred to the media and to pull the
strings on most of the politicians and to tell the Clintonistas what to
do. It'll be a while yet before we can wipe the sneer off their faces for
good, but even now we can make their hateful work more difficult for them.

The most important thing for us to keep in mind is that we are not powerless,
despite what the haters would like for everyone to believe. We don't have
to lie down and let them walk on us. If we just have the courage and the
energy to use our voices, we can accomplish much. The haters always do
their dirty work in secret, behind the scenes. They can only steal freedom
from Americans if the public doesn't understand what they're up to. They
can only get away with silencing people like Hans Schmidt if the public
doesn't know about it. It's our responsibility to tell the public: to tell
them loudly and clearly and repeatedly.

Let's think about one more thing. It is terrible, of course, that we
have a government composed of criminals and traitors, of despicable politicians
like Bill Clinton, who collaborate with the enemies of our people to bring
about such crimes as the imprisonment of Hans Schmidt.

Despite this, however, as we move into this new year I am more optimistic
than I have ever been. A great sea change is taking place in the consciousness
of the American people, a great awakening. Most of them are still far from
a full understanding of the evil which afflicts our nation. They are still
far from being ready to deal with the haters and their collaborators in
the manner they deserve. But there is at least a new openness, a new willingness
to listen and to reason. I see a growing impatience with treason, a growing
unwillingness to swallow the smooth lies of the Clintonistas, a growing
suspicion of the controlled media and of the hate groups behind the media.
And it is our responsibility, the responsibility of all of us with some
understanding of what has been happening in America, to help the rest of
the people develop their own understanding, to help their awareness grow,
to speed their awakening.

I can see that awakening on the horizon, in the not too distant future.
On the horizon I can see the glow of the cleansing fire with which this
nation will be swept: the fire which will restore us to health and sanity
and honor, the fire which will consume the filth and the deceit and the
hate and leave us with the possibility to shape a new future for our children
and our grandchildren.

We must endure more treason and injustice as the haters pull out all
the stops in their efforts to maintain their power now, and later to save
their skins. But the end of them and their evil is in sight, and that is
something in which we can all rejoice.
---

Hans Schmidt

(April 24, 1927 – May 30, 2010)

See also: http://williamlutherpierce.blogspot.com/2012/12/dr-pierce-with-his-old-friend-hans.html

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

WASHINGTON
POST story tells of Nathan Cohen decision compelling Federal workers to
submit to sensitivity-training sessions. Applying many of the same
techniques which were used to brainwash American POW’s in communist
prison camps in Korea and Vietnam, Federal psychologists are able to
control attitudes and opinions with a high degree of success. These
techniques are also being used in high schools now to “adjust” White
students to a multiracial environment.

In 1984,
the well-known political horror-fantasy by George Orwell, it was called
the Two Minutes Hate. At eleven o’clock each morning the workers in all
government offices assembled in front of television screens for a
sensitivity-training session in which they released their pent-up
hostilities and became, thereby, better-adjusted subjects of Big
Brother.

In 1975 they don’t call it the Two Minutes Hate, but it
amounts to exactly the same thing. Federal employees are increasingly
being forced to submit to mind-bending group-therapy sessions designed
to suppress “undesirable” attitudes — primarily attitudes toward members
of racial-minority groups — and mold their psyches in directions deemed
more suitable by the clever people who plan the therapy sessions.

Beginning
(appropriately) in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and
the now-defunct Office of Economic Opportunity a few years ago, the
government’s sensitivity-training program is gradually being extended to
other Federal agencies, both in Washington and in the boondocks.

Many
government workers are complaining about this not-very-subtle program
of thought control, but a recent decision in the case of an employee at
the Watervliet (NY) Arsenal indicates that Big Brother is determined to
press on.

Backed by his union, the American Federation of
Government Employees, the Watervliet Arsenal employee argued that the
government unjustly suspended him from his job without pay when he
refused to attend sensitivity-training sessions which had been scheduled
for workers at the arsenal.

A Federal labor arbitrator, Nathan
Cohen, ruled against the union and the employee, saying the government
has the right to enforce attendance and punish employees who do not go
to the sessions. Cohen’s ruling will not halt all employee resistance to
compulsory sensitivity training, but it will give the government an
advantage in being able to threaten with dismissal all Federal workers
who balk.

The Federal thought-control program is most solidly
established in the Department of Defense. Under Secretary of Defense
James Schlesinger sensitivity training has been institutionalized in
each of the armed services as a mandatory part of the training of all
personnel.

Some of the “shock techniques” used in earlier
military sensitivity-training sessions are primarily responsible for the
notoriety the program has received. Stripped of all insignia of rank,
officers and enlisted personnel, Black and White, male and female, were
herded into classrooms and subjected to various experiences designed to
rub their noses collectively in the filth of racemixing.

In some
sessions Black instructors would scream obscenities at White
participants and encourage them to reciprocate: “You White honky
motherfucker, call me a nigger! Come on, you honky bastard, you’re
thinking ‘nigger’; now say it! ” The idea was to bring latent racial
hostility to the surface, so that it could be dissipated.

In one
Navy program at Charleston, S.C., a Black instructor took a White female
assistant to the front of the class and fondled and kissed her, after a
series of obscene “bedroom” remarks. The Navy received such strenuous
objections to this program that it was temporarily halted.

But
Federal psychologists have found that they are able to achieve their
purpose just as well with more subtle techniques. One “final exam”
devised by the mind-controllers, for example, simply involves passing a
soft drink around the sensitivity-training classroom. Anyone in the
racially mixed group who declines to take a drink from the common bottle
is considered to have flunked.

Herd instinct — the drive to
conform to group standards — is very powerful, and Big Brother’s experts
have learned how to manipulate it in such a way that they can modify
the opinions and attitudes of their subjects. The basic method used is
to strip the individual’s personality naked, to deprive him of his
privacy, to make him bare his innermost thoughts and feelings—and then
to apply overwhelming pressure to him to make those thoughts and
feelings conform to those of the others in the group. In the context of
the sensitivity-training class, to be non-conforming is equivalent to
being anti-social.

And the method works. Only persons of extraordinarily strong will and personality are immune to its effects.

Unfortunately,
employees of the Federal government are not the only persons being
subjected to the new thought-control program; workers in some industrial
plants with Federal contracts are also being required to attend therapy
sessions. Worse, pilot programs have been established in a number of
the nation’s high schools.

Whereas the program for adults aims
primarily at keeping natural racial hostilities in check, the high
school programs are more ambitious. Their purpose is to utterly destroy
any sense of racial identity in young Whites, to nip in the bud any
incipient feeling of racial pride and replace it instead with
self-hatred and guilt. The sensitivity trainers want to produce a new
generation of racially castrated Whites — raceless White zombies who
will blend unobtrusively into the multi-racial future they are planning
for America.

In most cases the high school programs have adopted
formats rather similar to the adult program, except that they have taken
full advantage of the greater impressionability of their participants.
But the thought-controllers are always experimenting, attempting to
improve their craft.

One of their newer inventions is a “White
studies” course for the White minority at the mostly Black Berkeley (CA)
High School. It is called “What Is White?”

As proudly reported in the June 30 issue of Newsweek,
the course complements “Black studies” courses in which Black students
are taught that the only reason their race has a record of failure and
lack of achievement throughout history is that the wicked and greedy
Whites have held them back. Berkeley’s new “White studies” course
teaches young Whites that they must accept the guilt for White
repression of non-White races and try to make it up to them.

“After exploring such topics as prejudice and white culture,” reports Newsweek,
the White students “come around to the view that the white man’s burden
of guilt for America’s imperfections is really an opportunity and that
there is much whites can do to help because of their position in
society.”

One student who took the course, 17-year-old Anthony
Cody, said: “I feel better about being white now. The course gave me the
ability to deal with it.”

When the time comes to settle scores
in America, there will be no place in hell hot enough for the depraved
creatures responsible for destroying the racial consciousness of these
White boys and girls. Meanwhile, however, the thought-controllers are
going ahead as fast as prudence allows, and the number of young people
being subjected to their program is growing at an alarming rate.

Unless
Americans who still have the capacity to think for themselves act soon,
that capacity may be taken from them; certainly it will be taken from
their children. Unless we upset Big Brother’s plans, 1984 may be here in
less than nine years.

* * *

Transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom -- source: http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1225

The
Resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November
10, equating Zionism and racism, has provoked a torrent of response in
the news media. Much of this response has been deliberately deceptive,
and there consequently exists a state of confusion in the average
citizen’s mind as to just what Zionism is and what its relationship is,
if any, with racism.

Israeli
Ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog, sneers at “goyim” in the UN General
Assembly as he contemptuously tears up their resolution condemning
Zionism. It is arrogant behavior like this which has earned the Jews the
well-deserved hatred of all the other peoples of the world.

The
Jewish response to the UN action, has been to deny that Zionism is
racism and to charge to the contrary that anti-Zionism is merely a
thinly veiled anti-Semitism. Jews maintain that Zionism, with its call
for an exclusive Jewish homeland comprising Palestine and portions of
other Arab countries, cannot be separated from Judaism and the Jewish
people. In the words of Chaim Herzog, Israeli ambassador to the UN:

“Zionism…
is the modern expression of the ancient Jewish heritage. The Zionist
ideal, as set out in the Bible, has been and is an integral part of the
Jewish religion.”

The Jews are essentially correct in asserting
that one cannot be against Zionism without also being against Jews. Even
though many Jews do not participate actively in any of the numerous
Zionist political organizations, it is an undeniable fact that Jews,
non-religious as well as religious ones, are nearly unanimous in their
support for the government of Israel and for the political goals of
Zionism.

Those who oppose Zionism or who are totally indifferent
to it are an utterly insignificant minority. As Israel’s leaders are
fond of boasting, “The Six Day War (of June 1967, in which the Jews
seized Egypt’s Sinai, Jordan’s West Bank, and Syria’s Golan in a
surprise assault on their Arab neighbors) Zionized world Jewry.”

Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary,
the organ of the powerful American Jewish Committee, says essentially
the same thing: “It has become clearer and clearer that something has
happened to the Jews of America: they have all been converted to
Zionism.”

But is Zionism equivalent to racism? Jews are the very
image of wounded innocence as they hotly deny this. They correctly point
out that Jews have been the instigators, the financiers, the
propagandists, the generals, and, to a great extent, the soldiers in the
war against racism, both in the United States and in other parts of the
world.

As just one example, the most important organization in
America seeking to bring about racial mixing between Blacks and Whites,
the National Association far the Advancement of Colored People, has been
an almost exclusively Jewish enterprise from its founding by Jews in
1910 until the death of its last Jewish president, Kivie Kaplan, last
year. A Jewish lawyer, Jack Greenberg, still heads the NAACP Legal
Defense Fund, which has instigated most of the moves toward
court-enforced racial mixing in the last 25 years, including the
original school-integration decision by the Supreme Court in 1954, from
which all of today’s forced-busing orders have stemmed.

And the
record of votes by Jewish legislators in the Congress and statements by
Jewish spokesmen in the media is clear: they overwhelmingly favor all
moves, including the racial busing of school children, which bring about
increased racial mixing.

In other countries it is the same
story. In South Africa, for example, the crumbling of the government’s
policy of apartheid and the decision to abandon Rhodesia are the direct
result of Jewish pressure. Harry Oppenheimer, the Jewish
multibillionaire who controls the De Beers diamond mines, practically
all of South Africa’s gold mines, her uranium industry, and a dozen
other South African industries as well, has used his enormous wealth to
buy control of many of the English-language news media in South Africa
and has made substantial inroads into Afrikaans newspapers and
magazines. He uses his media control to propagandize for Black-White
“equality” and eventual Black rule for South Africa while simultaneously
applying more direct pressures to government officials. He is supported
in his efforts by South Africa’s very substantial Jewish community.

So, if nearly all Jews are Zionists and if nearly all Jews believe in racial mixing, how can Zionism be a form of racism?

In
trying to answer this question, it is helpful to consider what a few
prominent Zionists have had to say about Zionism. Moses Hess (1812-1875)
is regarded as the real father of the modern, political form of
Zionism. In his book Rome and Jerusalem, published in 1862, he wrote:

“We Jews shall always remain strangers among the goyim
(Gentiles)… It is a fact that the Jewish religion is above all Jewish
nationalism… Each and every Jew, whether he wishes it or not, is
automatically, by virtue of his birth, bound in solidarity with his
entire nation… One must be a Jew first and a human being second.”

Hess
was more a Jewish nationalist than a Jewish racist — although he
clearly did consider Jewishness to be a matter of birth rather than
conviction. Other Zionists were much more explicit on this point. Louis
Brandeis, a former U.S. Supreme Court justice and a leading Zionist,
stated it succinctly: “Jews are a distinct nationality of which every
Jew, whatever his country, his station, or his shade of belief, is
necessarily a member.”

The Zionist historian Simon Dubnow wrote in his book, The Foundation of National Judaism (published in 1906):

Assimilation
is common treason against the banner and ideals of the Jewish people…
But one can never ‘become’ a member of a natural group, such as a
family, a tribe, or a nation. One may attain the rights or privileges of
citizenship with a foreign nation, but cannot appropriate for himself
its nationality too. To be sure, the emancipated Jew in France calls
himself a Frenchman of Jewish faith. Would that mean, however, that he
became a part of the French nation, confessing to the Jewish faith? Not
at all. Because in order to be a member of the French nation one must be
a Frenchman by birth, one must be able to trace his genealogy back to
the Gauls, or to another race in close kinship with them, and finally
one must also possess those characteristics which are the result of the
historic evolution of the French nation. A Jew, on the other hand, even
if he happened to be born in France and still lives there, in spite of
all these, he remains a member of the Jewish nation, and whether he
likes it or not, whether he is aware or unaware of it, he bears the seal
of the historic evolution of the Jewish nation.

All three
Zionists quoted above may be correctly regarded as racists, in that they
reject the prevailing notion of the day that only the individual has
any real significance and that it is wicked even to take into
consideration the biological and cultural connections of the individual
to a “natural group” (to use Dubnow ‘s term) of which he is a member.

It
can be argued, nevertheless, that Jewish racism is at least a little
different from the racism of most other peoples, in that it does place
relatively less emphasis on purely biological connections and relatively
more on other tribal connections: a shared culture, history, and
attitude toward the non-Jewish world.

But this is to be expected
in a people who exhibit as much biological diversity as the Jews do.
They have absorbed physical traits from many of the other races among
whom they have lived, until today, although most Jews still have many
racial factors in common, they cannot be easily classified as a distinct
race — and certainly not as a homogeneous race.

That which
defines the Jews is only partly racial. They are also a partly national,
partly religious, partly historical, partly cultural entity.

Indeed,
because Jews are much more uniform psychically than physically, it is
very difficult to decide whether they are more nearly a racial entity or
a cultural entity. But that may be an irrelevant point. The fact is
that Jews, now and always, have regarded themselves as a distinct,
separate, and very special category of people — the “chosen people,” the
“people of God,” and, as such, superior to all other peoples of the
earth.

This idea that all Jews, whatever the country of their
birth, are members of a single tribe, separate from and superior to all
others, is the central theme of Zionism and of Judaism. Nahum Goldmann,
president of the World Zionist Organization, touched on it when he said:

"Diaspora
Jewry (all Jews outside Palestine) has to overcome the conscious or
subconscious fear of so-called double loyalty. It has to be convinced
that it is fully justified in tying up its destiny with Israel’s. It has
to have the courage to reject the idea that Jewish communities owe
loyalty only to the states where they live.”

Nahum Goldmann, top Zionist leader. He speaks openly of a “Jewish race” and urges Jews everywhere to be loyal only to Israel.

Dr.
Goldmann expressed himself more clearly in addressing the Jews of
Germany, before World War II, attempting to persuade them to emigrate to
Palestine:

Judaism can have nothing in common with
Germanism, if we go by the standards of race, history, and culture, and
the Germans have the right to prevent the Jews from intruding into the
affairs or their volk… The same demand I raise for the Jewish volk, as
against the German… The Jews are divided into two categories, those who
admit that they belong to a race distinguished by a history thousands of
years old, and those who don’t. The latter are open to the charge of
dishonesty.

If the racism expressed by Goldmann in the above
statements were all there is to it, it would be hard to find fault with
Zionism. Racism — the feeling of belonging to a “natural group,” of
owing loyalty to that group, of wanting to preserve its identity and
promote its welfare, of preferring to associate with members of that
group rather than with aliens — is a universal, natural, and healthy
condition of mankind. Indeed, it is a natural condition of all living
things, in a sense, and they all owe their very existence to its
universality.

But Zionism — whether one prefers to call it Jewish
nationalism or Jewish racism — goes far beyond that. It is a distorted
racism, a perverted and predominantly negative racism, expressing itself
more in hostility toward other peoples than in positive aspirations for
the Jewish people.

This has been true from the time of Moses,
who instructed his fellow Jews to massacre without pity the Gentiles
whose lands they wanted to seize, lest they later be inconvenienced by
the survivors:

“But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of
the land from before you, then it shall come to pass that those which ye
let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes and thorns in your
sides and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.’” (Numbers 33:55)

The
advice was generally followed in the old days, and it is still followed
today. Joshua, after capturing the city of Jericho and looting it of
all its “silver and gold and vessels of brass and iron”… “utterly
destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old,
and ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the sword.”

And, more
than 3,000 years later, the Haganah and the Irgun and the Stern Gang
massacred the entire populations of Palestinian villages in order to
terrify the other Arab inhabitants of Palestine into fleeing the country
and leaving their homes and farms and businesses to be taken over by
Jews.

This hostility toward other peoples, this extreme Jewish
xenophobia and ethnocentricity, this contempt for everything not Jewish
is revealed over and over again in the writings of Zionists, just as in
their actions. It is a masochistic sort of racism, which glories and
revels in the anti-Jewish hostility which it in turn provokes.

This clipping from the November 21, 1975, issue of the Jewish Press,
which claims to have the largest circulation of any English-language
weekly newspaper for Jews, complains that Gentiles are “infiltrating”
into Israel posing as Jews, thus “desecrating” the Jewish state and
religion. In the eyes of orthodox Jews, “goyim” (Gentiles) are mere
cattle, not human beings.

Theodor Herzl, the Zionist leader whose efforts were most essential to the founding of the state of Israel, wrote in his book The Jewish State (published in 1896):

Every
nation in whose midst Jews live is, either covertly or openly,
anti-Semitic… Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among
the Gentiles… We are one people — our enemies have made us one in our
despite… Distress binds us together, and, thus united, we suddenly
discover our strength.

The Zionist Jakob Klatzkin (1882-1948) carried the idea further in his book Crisis and Decision, published in 1921, and addressed to the German people:

…We
are not hyphenated Jews (i.e., German-Jews); we are Jews with no
qualifications or reservations. We are simply aliens; we are a foreign
people in your midst, and, we emphasize, we wish to stay that way. There
is a wide gap between you and us, so wide that no bridge can be laid
across. Your spirit is alien to us; your myths, legends, habits,
customs, traditions and national heritage, your religious and national
shrines, your Sundays and holidays… they are all alien to us. The
history of your triumphs and defeats, your war songs and battle hymns,
your heroes and their mighty deeds, your national ambitions and
aspirations, they are all alien to us. The boundaries of your lands
cannot restrict our movements, and your border clashes are not of our
concern. Far over and above the frontiers and boundaries of your land
stands our Jewish unity… Whosoever calls the foreign (Gentile) land a
fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people … A loyal Jew can never be
other than a Jewish patriot… We recognize a national unity of diaspora
Jews, no matter in which land they may reside. Therefore, no boundaries
can restrain us in pursuing our own Jewish policy…

And the
“American” Zionist, Samuel Untermyer, said in 1933: “Other races have
come and gone. The Jew has survived. Persecution cannot crush him. The
Jews are the aristocrats of the world.”

Such unbridled and
reckless arrogance, stemming from the persistent Jewish notion that the
children of Israel have been “chosen” to rule the world and must,
therefore, remain aloof from the goyim,
destined to be their slaves when the Messiah comes, has led to a great
deal of friction between the Jews and their Gentile hosts throughout the
ages. And yet even this negative and peculiarly Jewish form of racism
could be tolerated, if that were all.

The Jews could all go off
to the Middle East and finish butchering the Palestinians, or they could
all settle on a large island by themselves somewhere, and they could
then indulge their narcissist fantasies and their hatred of the rest of
mankind to their hearts’ content, and we would not care.

But
gathering the Jews of the world together in one place is not really part
of the Zionist scheme. They want an exclusively Jewish homeland, all
right, but they also want to maintain their death grip on the economies
and the governments of the Gentile lands where they live as minorities.
Zionism is built not only on the ideas of Jewish exclusiveness and
Jewish superiority, but also on the idea of Jewish world dominion.

Not
a world dominion achieved by force of Jewish arms or by any frontal
assault on the hated goyische world, but a dominion brought about by
infiltration and subversion, by the encouragement of weakness and
decadence among the Gentiles, by the imperceptibly slow injection of a
Jewish spiritual poison into the hearts and minds of the goyim,
destroying their will to resist.

And therein we have the
explanation of the seeming dilemma: Jews who have devoted all their
talents and energies to combatting racism being themselves charged with
racism by the world community. Yes, Jews are against racism — racism
among the Gentiles, that is, because they want to destroy the unity of
the Gentile nations. And, yes, Jews (or Zionists, if you prefer) are
racists, because they, more than any other people, realize the necessity
of maintaining their own unity.

The condemnation by the United
Nations of Zionism is, on the whole, a welcome move, but it nevertheless
fails to face the issue as squarely as it should. The UN has condemned
the Jews for their behavior in Palestine, for practicing both physical
and cultural genocide against the Palestinian people. But that is only a
negative form of the same racism which is practiced by all healthy
peoples. What the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is what the Turks
did to the Armenians, what the Serbs did to the Croats, what the
American pioneers did to the Indians, what the Germans did to the Jews
(although hardly to the tune of 6,000,000 as the Jews claim). It is the
way of the world, even if, in our Western squeamishness, we would like
to see more positive and fewer negative expressions of this natural and
universal racism.

And so, in this regard, the Jews are at least
justified in their claim that the UN condemnation of Zionist racism is
hypocritical, because most of the members of the UN practice their own
forms of racism. But if the UN were really an honest organization, it
could have issued a denunciation of Zionism against which the Jews would
have no defense.

Theodor
Herzl, one of the “founding fathers” of Israel. He dreamed of an
all-Jewish state from which the Gentile world would be ruled, in
fulfillment of Jewish “prophecies.

The UN could have
pointed out that Jewish racism is a unique evil — a unique danger to
the world — not because the Jews want Palestine all to themselves or
even because they aspire to world rule, but because of the truly unique
ways in which the Jews go about implementing their Zionist designs.

Recognizing
more clearly than any other people the importance of racism as a
natural defense — as Nature’s way of maintaining racial integrity — the
Jews deliberately go about neutralizing the racism of their intended
victims, thus destroying their unity, their cohesiveness, and their will
to resist. It is a tactic which has proven extraordinarily effective in
the past, a tactic to which the Western peoples in particular have
proven susceptible.

It is for this reason that the Germans, the
one nation in modern times which developed a defense against Jewish
racism, named the Jews “der Weltfeind” — the world enemy.

* * *

Transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom. Source: http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=1245&sid=b40b92cfbcd1ca411853eefc7d35a7e1